5 reasons the Google Chrome OS is a f*#$ing bad idea

Angus Kidman
09 July 2009, 2:37 PM


It's a Google OS! It's open source! It's not Windows! It's vaporware.


All the blithering excitement about Google's Chrome OS announcement shouldn't blind us to the fact that it's currently vapourware and history suggests it will make little difference to the overall PC market.

It's long been assumed that Google would eventually make some sort of play for the OS space. That play happened today when it announced (in typical Google fashion, via a blog post) that it was indeed working on an operating system, named Chrome OS and aimed at netbooks.

The post outlines the known facts: the OS will appear sometime in the second half of 2010, will work with both ARM and Intel x86 chips, will be open source, and will focus on launching into a browser as its main apps base. Given the project's open source nature, it's inevitably drawing heavily on Linux, with most web speculation pointing at Ubuntu and its forthcoming Karmic Koala distribution.

18 months is a long time in technology, so given Google's announced release schedule, there's no reason to get too excited. And based on what little we know, there's plenty of reasons not to. Here's five to be going on with.

5. Current OSes proves the mass market wants no-brainer drivers, lots of choice, and Windows

Aiming to build a netbook OS helps Google partially sidestep the biggest problem with developing a PC operating system: making sure there are drivers to support all the possible hardware combinations. There are basically three approaches to this in the market today: tightly controlling both the hardware and the OS for stability and charging a premium as a result (Mac), trying to support a wide range of hardware and then getting loathed by consumers if everything doesn't work (Windows), or relying on open source enthusiasm and cursing when manufacturers won't share information (Linux).

Google's approach sits somewhere between the Mac and Linux versions. It has said it is working with several manufacturers to build netbooks, and doubtless the components in those will be carefully vetted to make sure they work. But even if you don't want to modify the basic system components, you'll probably want to connected your netbook to a USB broadband key or a printer. Getting those vendors on board won't be easy even for Google.

Google notes that users "don't want to spend hours configuring their computers to work with every new piece of hardware". How it proposes to solve that conundrum in a minimally-configured netbook environment is a huge question mark.

It's also worth remembering that while netbooks can theoretically run anything, most everyday consumers seem happy for them just to run Windows. ASUS, for example, pioneered the whole market with the Linux-based Eee 701 model, but now only 5% of its models run on Linux.

4. Android proves that open source plus Google doesn't equal mass market success

Though plenty of people have experimented with running Android (Google's mobile phone OS) on netbooks, Google has emphasised that Chrome OS will not be derived from Android. Nonetheless, Android's history provides a useful lesson in how adding the Google brand and open source to a hardware project won't automatically result in massive market success in the short term.

Android was first announced in November 2007 after several years of internal development. Eighteen months later, there are exactly two Android models available in the Australian market: hardly an earth-shattering result. It's been widely assumed that phone hardware manufacturers will eventually produce Android drivers and that will open up a new market for the phone, but precisely that kind of thinking led to Kogan's currently aborted Agora project.

3. Chrome itself is hardly a world beater

Chrome has been in development for nine months. While its speed in executing Ajax is impressive and its multi-threaded approach commendable, there are still plenty of features it doesn't have (such as decent printing support). Its market share remains minute compared to Internet Explorer and Firefox, suggesting that most users can't see a compelling reason to switch (Google itself says "30 million people use it regularly", but doesn't break down that statistic to cover how long they use it for). If the browser is going to be the basis for most applications access in Chrome OS, then the Chrome browser is going to need to get a lot slicker.

2. The security claims are untested and dubious

Google's announcement makes much of how it's being written from the ground up to eliminate current security woes. "We are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates," its announcement boasts. "It should just work."

Apple takeoff aside, that sounds like a crock of shit. No modern OS is immune from requiring security updates -- because bulletproof code is impossible -- and there's no reason whatsoever to assume Chrome will be any different. No OS can entirely protect against users installing disguised malware through greed or ignorance, and if Chrome OS is a success, hackers will work overtime to find and exploit any weaknesses in both areas. If they don't do that, it will be because the user base isn't big enough to justify the effort, not because Google has achieved the impossible and developed an unhackable system.

1. The Web isn't a great applications platform

Apple's experience with the iPhone also demonstrates the limitations of Google's planned "run it all in the browser" approach. Until the iPhone App Store opened, the only way to run applications on the phone was via the browser. That proved massively less popular than being able to deploy native iPhone apps. Working in a browser is a great technique, but it doesn't work for everyone.

Google has suggested its main audience is people who do want to work on the web, but not all its statements gel with that vision. For instance, it argues that the OS will be able to work on "full-size desktop systems" (one reason Android isn't being used). But if you need a full-size desktop system, it's hard to imagine that you won't want to run some power apps that can't just use a browser for their interface.

It bears repeating: Google Chrome OS is a preliminary announcement of a product no-one has seen yet and which Google isn't planning on showing for at least a year. Assuming on that basis that the market is about to undergo a sea change is just plain crazy.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Ken Johnson (New user):

Linux is a bad idea period!!!

09 July 2009, 3:13 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

CBR1100XX (New user):

Quoting Ken Johnson:
Linux is a bad idea period!!!

.............. Oh Geez ! Now you've done it ;)
But I agree! Linux world domination will have to wait a little longer because this will be another white elephant!




09 July 2009, 3:48 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

I wasn't aware Linux was a time frame.

09 July 2009, 5:18 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

techydude (New user):

all fair points. especially announcing it now for debut a year+ from now seems pointless - the whole netbook craze has come, and i suspect peaked over the last 12-18 months as many novice buyers came to realise all they got was a notebook cut down in almost every sense, due in large part to retailers unsurprisingly failing to demonstrate that netbooks are for the most part only suited to living "in the cloud", rather than somehow magically being a real notebook with diminutive size.

but given that Google have announced this so far in advance makes me wonder if there's more to this announcement than meets the eye...


09 July 2009, 3:50 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Jarrod Spiga (User):

I would argue that you forgot the sixth reason - Privacy concerns are one of the biggest issues that I have with a lot of Google applications. Seeing that ChromeOS is essentailly going to run "Cloud" applications, most likely developed and provided by Google, I see little that doesn't increase my concern about people's privacy.

Or maybe I should put away my tin foil hat...

09 July 2009, 4:22 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Aubrey (New user):

Ahhh...privacy! That must be why facebook is such a failure - all those would-be users protecting their privacy. For goodness sake, privacy is basically a 90's concept for the rich. As soon as governments started to create privacy laws and privacy commissioners, the smart crowd realised it was already gone and they were on their own.

Not that I particularly like or encourage my info to be used - but what's the difference between Google and MS on the privacy front? Does your Windows machine not report in to Redmond?

As for Angus's article - 99% flamebait. As soon as he used Kogan as an exhibit against Android, he lost me in fits of laughter. The rest is just his usual f*#$ing sh1t dredged up from click-seeking blogs elsewhere.

That said, I'll bite a little bit:

Vapourware? Read the announcement - it was alerting developers that APIs and source code would be available in October this year. Sub-text - stop trying to make Android work on things bigger than a tablet - the real thing will be here soon. And how long ago did MS announce Win7 and it isn't released yet.

"Chrome has bugs" der. IE has bugs. Firefox has bugs. (And this f*#$ing website has more than both combined)

It won't take 100% market share immediately - oh dear, really? Then it is certainly a bad idea. Would a 10% share in three years be a bad result for Google? For consumers? How about 20% in five? Would OEMs feel it was still wise not to cooperate with FOSS then?

Google must be stupid to try this. Yep, any company that can only squeeze $US22 Billion out of advertisers in the middle of the biggest economic downturn since the 30s just isn't trying.






09 July 2009, 6:55 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

BrownieBoy (User):

>> The security claims are untested and dubious

In total contrast to Windows, where the security claims are *tested* and dubious.

09 July 2009, 7:47 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AndyCee (User):

I don't know, I'm a bit apathetic. Google seem to like experimenting - everything tagged by Google seems to have been started by "Why not?". Linux is almost irrelevant IMO to the success or failure to Google Chrome OS, as Google has more money than God to throw at support & sponsorship.

09 July 2009, 10:14 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Ken Johnson (New user):

Hhhhmmm,, Will my....

Scanner work?

Digital Camera work?

iTunes Work?

World of Warcraft work?

Word Documents work?

Dual Monitors work?

Bluetooth keyboard and mouse work?

Outlook/Word/Excel work?

I see issues with compatibilty already.. Good luck Google.

10 July 2009, 11:13 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting Ken Johnson:
I see issues with compatibilty already..

So you see compatibility issues with a specification which has not been announced? Must be a special skill, Eh?

Do you hear voices in your head as well?
Are you convinced the moon landing was a hoax?
Are robots stealing your luggage?

Those buffoons back at Google probably don't even have enough black helicopters? Do they?

Blind speculation, it costs nothing and everyone that wants to can do it !

10 July 2009, 11:34 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Ken Johnson (New user):

It may be free but not compatible with nothing. Health care is free, Water is free. Free is not always good.

10 July 2009, 12:30 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting Ken Johnson:
It may be free

What?



Quoting Ken Johnson:
but not compatible with nothing.

So logically we can deduce "is compatible with something. hmm?


Quoting Ken Johnson:
Health care is free, Water is free. Free is not always good.

But aren't water and health care good things? Kind of blows a hole in your free is not good argument. Even after the erroneous assumptions that either water or health care is free. But then again I was commenting on the situation as it is, back here on earth.


10 July 2009, 1:58 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

NetR@nger (New user):

Quoting Raindog:
Are you convinced the moon landing was a hoax?


The moon landing WAS a hoax.

10 July 2009, 7:36 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting NetR@nger:
The moon landing WAS a hoax.

Your from Qld aren't you? I can tell. :>


11 July 2009, 2:31 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

NetR@nger (New user):

Your memory is short,ive told you before that we come into contact several times a week.

12 July 2009, 9:20 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting NetR@nger:
ive told you before that

Your entitled to be wrong, and wrong often. I'm not in the habit of frequenting with young net-rangers or any kinds of conspiracy theorists. :>


12 July 2009, 10:56 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

NetR@nger (New user):

Quoting Raindog:
Your entitled to be wrong


haha,i wish i could see the look on your face when u work it out.

12 July 2009, 6:26 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting NetR@nger:
i wish i could see the look on your face

Wish all you like, your desire to see me is flattering and yet at the same time very creepy. So best you keep your random guessing quiet,eh? There's a good little junior ranger. :>


12 July 2009, 8:27 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

NetR@nger (New user):

Quoting Raindog:
Wish all you like


hmmmmm,random.Anyway,back on topic-making an OS from scratch is a very brave statement,but if anybody can,google can.

13 July 2009, 9:09 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (User):

Quoting Raindog:
Are you convinced the moon landing was a hoax?
Actually "Raindog" I'm still not 100% convinced that the moon landing was an actual happening. I may have been a bit "stoned" at the time :) But it just didn't look that real to me :(





13 July 2009, 9:55 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting NetR@nger:
Anyway,back on topic

one has to wonder why you had to leave? Still it's likely there are few other chances for your wild claims.


Quoting The Big Baboo:
I'm still not 100% convinced that the moon landing was an actual happening. I may have been a bit

Some are convinced they have been probed by aliens, others are convinced WWII was a hoax, it's no coincidence that most of the furthest fetched claims and denials involve some form of dalliance with substance abuse.


14 July 2009, 8:54 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

JGrant (New user):

Is it just me who thinks that it's weird to name an OS with the same name as a program they already have?

regarding this comment:
"trying to support a wide range of hardware and then getting loathed by consumers if everything doesn't work (Windows)"

What crashes the most in Windows for me and people at my work? EXPLORER. I'm not talking internet explorer, I'm talking one of the most important processes running all the windows. Can you blame that on third party hardware or software?



10 July 2009, 11:53 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Marko (New user):

Wow, it seems like most people don't understand the culture, and therefore the underlying architecture underlying the open sources unixes (Linux & BSD). If hardware works on a mac, it will most likely work on Linux & BSD. Code sharing means that the drivers are shared between them. Also, that drivers come with the system, or are easily downloaded from a centralized repository, rather than coming bundled with hardware like windows driver CDs (CUPS: the Common Unix Printing System, used in Mac OS, Linux and BSD)

10 July 2009, 8:41 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Marko (New user):

Wow, it seems like most people don't understand the culture, and therefore the underlying architecture underlying the open sources unixes (Linux & BSD). If hardware works on a mac, it will most likely work on Linux & BSD. Code sharing means that the drivers are shared between them. Also, that drivers come with the system, or are easily downloaded from a centralized repository, rather than coming bundled with hardware like windows driver CDs (CUPS: the Common Unix Printing System, used in Mac OS, Linux and BSD)

10 July 2009, 8:41 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Marko (New user):

What makes me shudder is when all these Windows/Mac/proprietary software pundits, who don't really know much about unix & open source traditions, etc, wax eloquent about this... Oh God, embarrassing...

10 July 2009, 8:47 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

Angus, in general terms, you develop an interesting debate, except that is for one area. I don't necessarily agree, but you ideas are interesting. That said, as much as I cannot dispute Point 2, the other side of the equation is Windows. brownieboy summed-up the situation quite eloquently by saying, "In total contrast to Windows, where the security claims are *tested* and dubious."

11 July 2009, 10:10 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (New user):

The whole article is written to be inflammatory. Angus Kidman is pressing the right buttons, though none of the points he makes are convincing enough.

5. Current OSes proves the mass market wants no-brainer drivers, lots of choice, and Windows.

This entire point is predicated upon the assumption that Google will be unable to meet this requirement.

4. Android proves that open source plus Google doesn't equal mass market success

Actually, Android hasn't been in the market place long enough to be used as proof for anything. It's interesting that Angus uses the Australian availability of Android as a global benchmark. There are many stories in the traditions of many people that warn against triumphalism, Angus hasn't learned from any of them.

3. Chrome itself is hardly a world beater

So the argument here is that because Google's Chrome web-browser, which has existed for less than a year by the way, isn't a world beater the Chrome OS is a bad idea. Is every product announced by every company aimed at beating the rest of the world?

2. The security claims are untested and dubious

Angus should have left it at the title. There's nothing to say here until the OS is released and the tests can be run. Though it is possible to create a mainstream, widely adopted OS that is less susceptible to threats and for all intents and purposes (real-world) un-exploitable.

1. The Web isn't a great applications platform

True, the web isn't a "great" application platform, but for a whole swathe of uses it is a 'very-good' application platform. Furthermore, it isn't so much about 'the web' as it is about it's underpinning technologies. For the masses there are many benefits in terms of standardisation and portability. There will always be niches that require "great" applications written for "great" application platforms and those will be filled by mediocre software companies.

13 July 2009, 11:05 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

tman (New user):

i'm wondering if your feelings are the same now, 15 months later. i'm guessing they've changed a bit.

08 October 2010, 1:18 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user